Democrats-party of the rich.Matt Daley wrote some interesting comments about one of yesterday's entries. His words lead me to comment further on the real "party of the rich." He writes:
...Referring to the class warfare bit, how does the left accomplish that? By keeping the lower classes down. That's the only way they can have any type of influence -- if a large enough class of people is (basically) poor and stupid.
The Democratic Party of the modern era (and other leftist parties around the world) actually depend on the perpetuation of a permanent social underclass in order to insure their political survival. The more people that can be put on the public dole and kept on the public dole, the more people are likely to vote for liberal candidates. The reason is because the left uses the ultimate scare tactic: They always tell people that if they vote for a more conservative candidate, they will lose their benefits and they might even find themselves on the street. Of course, no one in their right might is going to vote themselves into hunger and homelessness, so people who are forced to use the welfare system to survive feel forced to vote for liberals.
Further, the system of public benefit in this country is designed in such a way as to actually discourage people from removing themselves from it, and it was made that way, per the Great Society, from its inception. For example, a disabled person receiving a monthly pension, called SSI in this country, stands to lose over half of their income if they try to get a part-time job and work their way through college! For most people, getting a job would put them ahead, but not for many of the poor, because the system designed to help them has failed them.
They accomplish this feat through the government entitlement system (Welfare, food stamps, etc.) and through the crumbling education system, which they refuse to fix.
Because much of the government welfare system is cyclical and discourages people from getting ahead, the Democrats have created a permanent base of voters who make use of various government programs. They manage to keep this base in tact by using the fear tactic of "if the other guy wins, you'll be cut off." So long as a permanent underclass exists, this kind of fearmongering is an effective political tactic. It is the primary method of campaigning for many Democratic candidates because they know that they have created this permanent underclass in order to insure a definate minimum of political success. By appealing to the fears of the underclass, they can win races. If the Democrats ran campaigns on substance alone, they would never have a chance at either a national or a state majority.
To hear the Party Opposite talk, you would think there was nothing wrong with the educational system that money could not fix. We agree that perhaps a little money can fix the problem, if parents (who liberals forget are the people who raise children) are given the option on where and how to spend it. Wait...that would mean that parents would pull their children out of the public schools en masse, which would mean that children would then go to better schools, be better educated, and become better and more informed citizens, which all statistical information would indicate makes them more likely not to vote for Democrats. Strange coincidence, isn't it?
Why would the people need big government if they were wealthier, more independent and more intelligent?
They wouldn't need much government at all, and likely wouldn't have much use for the Democratic Party as we know it today. That's why the Democrats, for all of their harping about the poor getting poorer, don't really want the poor to do well and have a better life. If the poor were less poor, they'd be less likely to look for a "D" on their election ballot.